Discussion Title: Should nuclear energy replace fossil fuels?

1. Nuclear energy should be used to replace fossil fuels.
1.1. Con: Many nuclear power plants, located on rivers, lakes and seas using water as a cooler, which heats the water. After that they throw the water back into the river \(lake/sea\). That heats the river \(lake/sea\) and destroy the ecosystems there.
1.1.1. Con: A lot of fossil fuel plants also used external water dumps to rid of coolant. This is not a nuclear-specific problem.
1.1.2. Con: Nuclear power plants can transfer waste heat into chemical heat sinks other than nearby ecosystems.  The waste heat from alternative nuclear reactor designs that yield higher temperatures \(and higher thermodynamic efficiency\) could be used to synthesize methanol, ammonia, and dimethyl ether by extracting CO2 from nearby air or sea water.
1.1.3. Con: Commercial reactors that use cooling towers extract water from the environment and evaporate it to steam in a phase-change heat sink. Thermal energy from the reactor is never transferred to nearby water bodies.
1.1.4. Con: Strict global rules for nuclear power production could be put into place.
1.2. Con: Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste which comes with numerous problems.
1.2.1. Con: Radioactive waste is relatively compact, and there are - admittedly, costly - effective ways of storing it or disposing of it.
1.2.1.1. Con: No permanent nuclear waste storage facilities exist at this point and [the search for them has largely stalled](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html).
1.2.2. Pro: The primary problem in selecting a site for nuclear waste storage is the long timescale the danger of radioactive waste continues.
1.2.3. Pro: There have been [no reported deaths](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X?via%3Dihub) from radiation after a Nuclear reactor meltdown, only upon the initial.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Compared to the [coal and oil industry](https://www.decodedscience.org/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682), In one year, over 4,000 U.S. coal miners are injured and nearly 24,000 die prematurely from diseases such as lung cancer \(black lung disease\).
1.2.3.2. Con: The number of deaths is an insufficient standard since radiation can harm humans as well as the environment without killing them, for example by [damaging](https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/backgrounders/radiation-effects-on-cells-dna) their cells and DNA.
1.2.4. Pro: There is a [major health risk](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.029) associated with radioactive waste; we do not even know all of the potential dangers.
1.2.4.1. Con: The effects of radiation exposure have been studied for nearly 100 years, and are quite well understood at this point.
1.2.4.2. Con: Increased [thyroid cancer rates](https://www.decodedscience.org/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682) as a result of radiation released from Chernobyl involved about 4000 people, of which most was curable.
1.2.4.2.1. Con: There is considerable debate concerning the accurate number of projected deaths due to the disaster's long-term health effects: long-term death estimates range from [4,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster) \(per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations\) to [at least 985,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment) premature deaths.
1.2.4.3. Con: Nuclear accidents release radioactive iodine into the atmosphere which can be absorbed into the body; when thyroid cells absorb too much radioactive iodine, it can cause [thyroid cancer](https://www.thyroid.org/nuclear-radiation-thyroid/) to develop several years after the exposure \(babies and young children are at highest risk\).
1.2.4.4. Pro: [Fukushima evacuees](https://www.decodedscience.org/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682) less than 40 years of age were instructed to take pills or syrup of stable iodine to prevent the risk of thyroid cancer.
1.2.5. Con: Breeder reactors could be built to [re-use](https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-power-plants-overview/prism1) this waste until it's no longer harmful.
1.2.5.1. Con: The technology has been, for all practical purposes, [abandoned by nearly all countries that were researching and developing it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants). The sole officially actively pursued pertinent design, [BREST-OD-300](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_\(reactor\)), [was planned to be built in 2020](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fast_moves_for_nuclear_development_in_Siberia_0410121.html) and [real work didn't even began](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-awards-contract-to-build-BREST-reactor). Moreover it will only \(when built, if ever, but not before 2026\) be a demonstrator \(low power\).
1.2.6. Pro: It is difficult to find a secure place to store nuclear waste due to myriad environmental factors and - usually - opposition of citizens nearby, as the [case of Germany](http://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-dump-nuclear-waste-for-good-but-where/a-19380548) shows.
1.2.6.1. Con: There is zero evidence of radiation deaths from spent fuel.  Spent fuel cannisters are literally indestructable and emit no harmful radiation whatsoever [youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE&t=1099s).  Yucca Mountain could store it indefinately.  Spent nuclear fuel is actually very valuable for many uses and the actual amount of "waste" is extremely tiny.  Even that amount might have future value.
1.2.6.2. Pro: We are not sure if next civilizations after thousands of years will understand our[long-time nuclear waste warning messages.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages)
1.2.7. Con: [So does virtually all of modern technology](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth), not to mention that we use this waste in a variety of i.a. scientific and medical applications. The amount of waste generated is tiny when compared to the amount of chemotoxic waste the world produces and which also needs to be stored permanently.
1.2.7.1. Con: The very fact that some modern technology \(not all of it\) indeed produces toxic waste isn't a reason to accept nuclear waste. [Two wrongs don't make a right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right).
1.2.8. Con: Burning of coal produces [far more radiation](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/) that is released to the atmosphere, rather than be contained underground in nuclear waste storage.
1.3. Pro: Nuclear energy holds [much more potential](https://www.smh.com.au/business/bill-gates-and-china-partner-on-worldfirst-nuclear-technology-20171106-gzfrf0.html) than fossil fuels in evolving through technological breakthroughs and increased efficiency.
1.3.1. Con: R&D dollars for nuclear research are shrinking more quickly than fossil fuel [research](https://blog.ucsusa.org/laura-wisland/will-clean-energy-research-and-development-be-sequestered).
1.3.1.1. Con: R&D funding depends on humans, not nature. The potential of nuclear fission has nothing to do with politics. It is always there for researchers.
1.3.1.1.1. Con: Funding reflects feasibility. If efficiency gains were low hanging fruit, the funding would follow. Here is an [example](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-nuclear-fusion-still-hasnt-delivered-clean-energy) of the slow progress in nuclear research.
1.3.2. Con: Biofuels provided the [largest supply impact](http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/01/biofuels-main-supply-response-to-2005.html) to the oil price shocks in the 2000's.
1.3.2.1. Con: A price shock offset by biofuels does not negate the argument that more efficiency can be gained in nuclear energy.
1.3.3. Con: Investing in more Nuclear would disincentivise the funding of research into renewable and fusion technology which would provide what we need once they have been developed enough.
1.3.3.1. Con: Working fusion technology is too far away to be a solution for today’s problems.
1.3.4. Pro: New technological breakthroughs in Nuclear Power are likely to provide side benefits. For instance, radioactive waste from [existing plants](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste) and [rare earth mining](https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/03/28/rare-earth-elements-and-thorium-power/#47cbbc792d76) can be utilized in molten salt reactors.
1.4. Con: Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to attacks.
1.4.1. Pro: Nuclear power plants could become target for attacks by air.
1.4.1.1. Con: Chemical factories as well. I doubt that military-related questions are relevant to the common situations.
1.4.1.2. Con: Tests [have shown](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html) that reactor containment is largely proof against air attacks.
1.4.1.3. Con: Nuclear power plant continment is strong enough to withstand crashing an airplane into it.
1.4.2. Con: Fossil plants are vulnerable to attacks, as is all infrastructure.
1.4.2.1. Con: An attack targeted at a nuclear plant could lead to a devastating nuclear melt-down, which is not the case for fossil plants.
1.4.3. Pro: Nuclear power plants [have been attacked by hackers already](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack#Cyber_attacks​).
1.5. Con: The elimination of fossil fuels would bring a loss of jobs in the industry.
1.5.1. Con: Reduction of workforce would result in cost savings passed on to the energy consumer.
1.5.1.1. Con: This is by no means certain since the production of energy by other means might require more jobs than is the case for nuclear energy - which, in turn, would mean higher energy prices.
1.5.2. Con: That is an advantage. The goal of energy production is to produce cheap, clean energy - not to employ people by meaningless tasks. By this logic, the printing press is bad as it causes loss of jobs for scribes.
1.5.3. Con: Health is more important than employment. Fossil fuels have everlasting impact on health and environment and are increasing with significant speed.
1.5.4. Con: Other energy sources \(not just nuclear power\) can [help create jobs](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/), for example, when we pay for solar and wind power plants, we pay for human labor, and often help create or support local jobs.
1.5.5. Pro: At the end of 2012, for example, when IHS Global Insights released a report claiming that at that time unconventional oil and gas extraction \(primarily hydraulic fracturing\) alone accounted for [1.7 million American jobs](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Fossil-Fuel-Industry-May-Not-Help-the-Planet-But-It-Employs-Millions.html) and would account for 3 million by the end of the decade.
1.5.6. Con: As energy sources change there will be new jobs and new technologies and hence a bunch of new jobs. Jobs may be a red herring anyway given the forecasts on how work will change over the next decade or two.
1.6. Con: Nuclear Energy is a [nonrenewable source](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/) of energy.
1.6.1. Con: That is no issue as long as there is enough fuel for the lifetime of the power plant.
1.6.1.1. Con: It represents an investment in a technology that must eventually be abandoned. Given nuclear's lack of competitiveness on price with fossil fuels, that would seem to represent an economic inefficiency, where money could be invested in more permanent solutions.
1.6.2. Pro: Replacing one non-renewable energy source with another one just pushes out the problem and builds up a new reliance.
1.6.2.1. Con: "Pushing the problem" out far enough is tantamount to a solution. In the thousands of years it will take to consume all the fissionable or breedable nuclear fuel, it's very likely that fusion will have become feasible, solar power will have developed, as will wind/tide/efficiency improvements. Let not the non-feasible perfect be the enemy of the currently sufficient.
1.6.2.2. Con: Technically, "renewables" are not "renewable" either due to the quantities of rare-earth minerals required to provide generation and storage. Much less abundant than common steel or fissile material.
1.6.3. Con: Nuclear energy is a [more abundant](https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/A-New-Nuclear-Revolution-Safe-Clean-And-Abundant.html) energy source.
1.6.3.1. Pro: [Thorium](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx) is another element that is much more abundant  than Uranium and can be used as nuclear fuel much safer.
1.6.3.2. Pro: Uranium is abundant and can last for more than [200 years](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/).
1.6.3.2.1. Con: Renewable sources like wind and solar have the potential to last indefinitely, which makes them more compelling from a sustainability standpoint.
1.6.3.2.1.1. Con: Formally yes, but the extraction of power from said sources are resource-consuming by itself.
1.6.4. Con: Nuclear energy doesn't need to be nonrenewable. It only needs to replace fossil fuels long enough for humans to develop more efficient renewable sources of energy.
1.6.5. Pro: Uranium is a [non-renewable](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=nonrenewable_home) energy source.
1.6.5.1. Con: Uranium 235 \(fissile uranium\) can be "bred" from Uranium 238. Additionally, Thorium can be used as nuclear fuel in a number of reactors. There is enough nuclear fuel available to power the world for thousands of years. So, granted that it's non-renewable, it's also virtually unlimited.
1.6.5.1.1. Con: Uranium-238 \(fertile Uranium\) ultimately transmutes within a breeder reactor into fissile Plutonium-239, not fissile Uranium-235. Plutonium-239 has a relatively stable half-life of 24,110 years, making it unfeasible for energy purposes to wait for the alpha decay that will turn it into Uranium-235.
1.6.5.1.1.1. Con: PU239 is directly fissionable. You don't need to wait for it to decay back down to u235.
1.6.5.2. Con: There are nuclear fuels other than Uranium-235 which are so abundant that they are effectively renewable.
1.6.5.3. Con: Uranium [might be](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#52ae1b24159a) renewable.
1.6.5.3.1. Con: Extraction of Uranium from seawater is currently [not economically viable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Recovery_from_seawater).
1.6.6. Con: Unlike fossil fuels that are also nonrenewable, nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or emit greenhouse gases, and they can be built in rural or urban areas and do not destroy the [environment](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/) around them.
1.6.6.1. Con: Water vapor is [the most abundant greenhouse gas](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor) and nuclear plants give off large amounts of steam.
1.6.6.2. Con: Chernobyl and Fukushima polluted the air and destroyed the environment around them.
1.6.6.3. Con: Catastrophic accidents at pressurized water reactor \(PWR\) based nuclear power plants such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have the potential to do significant and long-lasting damage to the environment.
1.6.6.3.1. Con: The region around Chernobyl is considered a [healthy ecosystem](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/?_ga=2.76378133.1272587384.1537623996-2105045288.1537623996) today.
1.6.6.3.2. Con: The [radiation based death toll](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=148227596) from Fukushima is zero, and is expected ultimately remain zero.
1.6.7. Con: [Some nuclear reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_reactor) do actually count as a renewable source of energy as they produce more fuel than they consume.
1.6.7.1. Con: Fast breeder reactors have not delivered their promises and are not currently economically viable \([CSTEP, p. 17](http://www.cstep.in/uploads/default/files/publications/stuff/CSTEP_Economics_of_Fast_Breeder_Reactors_Report_2012.pdf)\).
1.6.7.2. Con: Nuclear fuel cycles use a small amount of the stored potential energy during production of electricity. Making the process more efficient by reprocessing spent rods is not the same thing as a renewable source of energy.
1.6.8. Con: Renewable is a misnomer. The wind, water, and sun do provide free energy but the technology to extract it requires rare earth minerals, and massive amounts of steel and cement which are not renewable.
1.6.8.1. Con: Steel and cement are relatively cheap commodities. Fissile material is in much more limited supply at economically viable prices.
1.6.8.1.1. Con: A massive push for renewable generation or nuclear power generation is expected to make the unit prices of both fissile material and/or rare earth minerals skyrocket. This is not a problem unique to nuclear power, and "renewable" power doesn't work around it.
1.6.8.1.1.1. Con: [Strategies exist](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/AB360D776470D0F02E98104A16E496D1B2EB82C32EAD59DAA47F665201CCA1FCA5A52D4CA753061A89C5BDF9F45C88B9) for sustainable growth of wind power given rare earth material limitations.
1.6.8.1.1.2. Con: Raw materials used in renewable construction can be reclaimed and reused indefinitely.  Fissile material permanently reduces to other elemental forms, some of which may be recyclable, but ultimately has an end of usable life, making long term sustainability \(on the order of centuries\) problematic.
1.6.8.1.1.3. Con: Current proven reserves of fissile uranium will only last [200 years at current rates of consumption](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/).  The required expansion to replace fossil fuels could reduce that by an order of magnitude.
1.6.8.2. Pro: The only real way of judging the environmental footprint is energy density and Energy Returned on Energy Invested \([EROEI](https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/nuclear-has-one-of-the-smallest-footprints)\). Nuclear wins on those metrics hands down.
1.6.8.3. Pro: Renewables require magnets currently composed of rare earth elements that are forecast to become supply constrained, namely [neodymium and dysprosium](https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/).
1.6.8.4. Con: Large amounts of steel and cement are needed for Nuclear Plants as well.
1.7. Con: Renewable energy is a better option for replacing fossil fuels than nuclear.
1.7.1. Con: While renewables such as hydroelectric dams are suitable for baseload power generation, they have a significant impact on the ecology of the rivers they've been placed along. As well, most of the prime [hydroelectric](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/06/the_future_of_hydroelectricity_it_s_not_good.html) sites in the developed world already have dams installed on them.
1.7.2. Pro: Renewables such as algae [bio-fuels](https://www.fastcompany.com/40539606/exxon-thinks-it-can-create-biofuel-from-algae-at-massive-scale) could provide the flexibility required for baseload power generation while also extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, making them carbon neutral.
1.7.2.1. Con: [Algae Biofuel](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lessons-from-the-great-algae-biofuel-bubble) has not proven to be economically viable.
1.7.2.1.1. Con: Exxon is still working on the problem.
1.7.2.2. Con: Bio-fuels are still a burned fuel which produces carbon-dioxide as a by product.
1.7.3. Con: Nuclear power is not subject to hydro/geophysical constraints.
1.7.3.1. Con: The choice of a site for a nuclear power plant as well as its waste is subject to constraints as well, for example with an eye on seismic activity, the proximity of a body of water for cooling, and so on.
1.7.4. Pro: Renewable energy sources are [cheaper than nuclear](https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/).
1.7.4.1. Pro: Renewable energy costs are [dropping](https://www.ecowatch.com/wind-power-costs-2478701894.html) [rapidly](http://www.newenergyupdate.com/pv-insider/solar-costs-forecast-drop-40-2020-annual-pv-funding-hikes-41-128bn).
1.7.5. Pro: Renewable power is indefinitely sustainable.
1.7.5.1. Con: Renewable power is not indefinitely sustainable. It requires more physical space, and needs to be maintained meaning more rare earth minerals and metals need to be obtained. Maintaining the system ultimately adds to pollution and environmental degradation.
1.7.5.2. Pro: There will be sun, wind, rain and geothermal heat for millions of years to come.
1.7.6. Con: Increasing renewable energy share is not incompatible with increasing nuclear power plants.
1.7.7. Con: Hydro electric dams release lots of [methane](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06/hydropower-hydroelectricity-methane-clean-climate-change-study) into the air, methane being a greenhouse gas with a much more severe effect being around [28 times more powerful than CO2](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/methane#:~:text=Each%20of%20those%20puffs%20coming,more%20powerful%20over%2020%20years.).
1.7.8. Con: Renewable energy sources are unreliable and, thus, not suitable for baseload power generation.
1.7.8.1. Pro: Renewables such as solar and wind only provide power about [15%](http://ipwr.net/sun-hours-per-day/) of the time, making them unsuitable for base load power generation.
1.7.8.1.1. Con: Wind can be used [as baseload power generation](https://www.ceoe.udel.edu/File%20Library/Our%20People/Profiles/carcher/My_Papers/mason_archer_RSER_2011.pdf).
1.7.8.1.2. Con: Combined with energy storage technologies, indeterminacy of energy sources [can be mitigated](https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla-giant-battery-australia-reduced-grid-service-cost/).
1.7.8.1.3. Con: Energy management techniques [have antiquated](http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336) the assumptions behind the need for baseline power supplies.
1.7.8.1.4. Con: Efficiency of power generation technology [improves](https://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-efficiency-cost-over-time/) with use and adoption.
1.7.8.1.5. Con: Energy resources can be combined and tailored to the [natural resources](https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index/tech.html) \(sunlight, tidal, wind, geothermal, rivers\) of a region or [transmitted](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/will-solar-wind-and-new-tech-pave-the-way-for-a-dc-renaissance#gs.wWlFn_8) between regions, rather them relying on a single resource 100% of the time.
1.7.9. Con: Nuclear power has a better decarbonisation track record than renewables.
1.7.9.1. Pro: Intermittant renewables have no proven decarbonisation record. Countries, like Germany, that have tried to replace their fossil fuel generators with wind a solar have so far failed.
1.7.9.1.1. Con: Post-Fukushima, Germany has primarily sought to shut down nuclear power plants, not fossil fuel plants. Hence, the claim is not factually correct.
1.7.9.1.2. Con: Germany is successfully growing its use of renewables at [an accelerating pace](https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-germany-2520322211.html).
1.7.9.2. Pro: Nuclear power has been used to quickly and effectively decarbonised an entire country's/region's electricity grid. France replaced their oil generators \(about 80% of supply\) in a little over 10 years during the oil crisis in the 70's. Ontario replaced their coal generators again over about the last 10 years.
1.7.9.3. Con: Hydropower, wind, and ocean power have lower carbon footprints than nuclear, and solar significantly reduces the [footprint](https://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/15/greenest-source-power-french-response-low-carbon-strategy/) from fossil fuels.
1.8. Pro: Nuclear energy is more clean than fossil fuels.
1.8.1. Pro: Nuclear power [reduces greenhouse gas emissions](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.024).
1.8.1.1. Pro: Nuclear power saves [about 10%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510000303?via%3Dihub) of total CO2 emissions from energy use in OECD countries.
1.8.1.2. Pro: The [median lifecycle GHG emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources) of nuclear power plants are 12g of carbon dioxide equivalent for every kilowatt-hour of energy produced whereas the median lifecycle of solar energy is as four times as much as nuclear energy.
1.8.1.3. Con: A combination of alternative energy sources could reduce GHG emissions, for example, [solar panels](http://www.solarcity.com/residential/benefits-of-solar-energy) can help combat greenhouse gas emissions and reduce people's dependence on fossil fuel.
1.8.2. Con: Nuclear power still has a [carbon footprint](https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon).
1.8.2.1. Con: The carbon footprint of nuclear energy relative to the energy produced is negligible.
1.8.2.2. Con: It is arguable, that nuclear's footprint is less than that of virtually all other energy sources, especially if albedo effects are considered. See [here](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf) \(IPCC report\), pg. 1335 \(pg. 10 in the PDF document\).
1.8.3. Con: Uranium mining has the potential to affect surface water quality and quantity groundwater quality and quantity, soils, air quality, and biota.
1.8.3.1. Con: Mining engineers should be able to and are often required to minimize [discharge](https://www.epa.gov/eg/mineral-mining-and-processing-effluent-guidelines-documents) from the site and [remediate](https://www.epa.gov/superfund/abandoned-mine-lands-policy-and-guidance) local mine area after mining has been completed.
1.8.3.2. Con: The above problems are not limited to uranium mining but inherent in mining of all materials including for coal, rare earths, silica, limestone. Our society cannot function without doing some of the above.
1.8.3.2.1. Pro: Renewable alternatives to nuclear energy and fossil fuels require mining which can cause the same issues.
1.8.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.8.
1.9. Pro: The development of nuclear power station technology would probably produce other valuable technologies.
1.10. Con: \>50% of [Uranium](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx) is produced by Russian-affiliated states - making it vulnerable to being used as a geopolitical weapon.
1.10.1. Con: Nuclear fuels have an energy density which is roughly one [million times larger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) than that of other fossil fuels. Thus, a 10-year reserve of uranium can be easily stockpiled to prevent geopolitical moves. Furthermore, the contribution of nuclear fuels to the total cost of the electricity produced [is minuscule](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx). A large increase in the price of uranium would not hurt the economics of a plant much, but it would give incentive to other parties to produce the fuel and take power away from large players
1.10.2. Con: Fossil fuels are already used by different states as geopolitical weapons. There are [evidence](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/603868/EXPO_STU\(2018\)603868_EN.pdf) that [Russia](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/russia-seen-needing-ukraine-s-gas-pipelines-to-europe-after-2019) uses fossil [fuel supplies](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2018/04/25/gas-geoeconomics-in-europe-make-russia-a-normal-gas-supplier-again/#3ee954811389) as a weapon.
1.10.3. Con: Natural resources can always be \(mis-\)used for geopolitical goals, no matter by which country.
1.10.3.1. Con: Misusing solar activity or wind for geopolitical goals seems much more difficult than misusing nuclear-related equipment or material.
1.11. Pro: -> See 1.6.3.
1.12. Pro: Nuclear power is [more cost-efficient](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx).
1.12.1. Pro: Fossil fuels are becoming [more scarce and expensive](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Rising-Cost-Of-Fossil-Fuels-And-The-Coming-Energy-Crunch.html).
1.12.2. Con: Other renewable sources such as wind and solar require shorter times to deploy and lower capex, largely shouldered by private entities.
1.12.3. Con: The costs of radioactive waste are unknown and could make nuclear energy much more expensive than other forms of energy.
1.12.4. Con: Nuclear power is more expensive than alternative replacement power sources, and that [gap](http://energyinnovation.org/2018/01/22/renewable-energy-levelized-cost-of-energy-already-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-and-prices-keep-plunging/) will continue to grow.
1.12.5. Con: If the cost of clean-up in case of a nuclear accident is included in actual commercial insurance costs, the cost of nuclear power is high.
1.12.6. Con: The initial startup cost is expensive, in a range [between $6 million and $9million per unit](http://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf).
1.12.6.1. Pro: Nuclear plants require a high capital investment. However, they are built to last at least 40 years \(and some are expected to last even 80 years\). Given the high production volume and long lifetimes, the amount of energy produced over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant easily justifies that initial high investment.
1.12.7. Con: Wind power and large-scale solar will cost [around £50-75](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/solar-and-wind-cheaper-than-new-nuclear-by-the-time-hinkley-is-built) per megawatt-hour of power generated in 2025 whereas nuclear energy is anticipated to be around £85-125 megawatt-hour.
1.12.7.1. Con: This is in [levelized cost of electricity \(LCOE\)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213009390) which is the cost for the producer and not the cost to society. The value of always available and dispatchable energy is not taken to account in LCOE calculations.
1.12.7.2. Con: The costs of wind and solar power quoted consider only generation costs. System costs, including transmission and storage - required to make wind and solar power dispatchable - are not quoted, nor can they be since such costs depend very much on the existing mix of other generation types and the share of wind and solar specifically.
1.12.8. Con: Costs estimates for new nuclear plant construction range between [$4 billion to $9 billion](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-cost) per unit while every other alternative [costs much less.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J)
1.12.9. Pro: Nuclear power plants are [expensive to build](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx), but in the long term, the operating cost will come down the more reactors are built.
1.12.9.1. Pro: Nuclear power costs [1.92 cents](https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-nuclear-energy-vs--fossil-fuel.html) to produce one kilowatt-hour of nuclear power whereas coal costs 1.88 cents, natural gas costs 2.68 cents, and oil costs 3.77 cents.
1.12.9.2. Con: Life cycle costs for nuclear power generation has been estimated at [12 to 20 cents a kilowatt-hour](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html) whereas life cycle costs for wind power are at 6 cents a kilowatt hour.
1.12.9.2.1. Con: The levelized cost of electricity is the cost for the production of each kWh. Due to the variable nature of renewables, the cost to get it to the consumer when it is needed is not encapsulated in this number. Carbon-free, dispatchable energy should be considered enormously valuable.[sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213009390) The additional social cost of discarding nuclear may be very high if climate change is mitigated more slowly or less robustly due to this decision.
1.13. Pro: Nuclear energy is a proven technology that is already providing the [majority](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41333) of our non-fossil fuel energy.
1.14. Con: Nuclear energy may work for electricity grids, but since a lot of energy is consumed outside electricity grids, for example by vehicles, it cannot replace fossil fuels.
1.14.1. Pro: In 2018, [only 4.4%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel) of the primary energy was nuclear-produced, while 85% was produced using fossil fuels. Therefore, we would need to build about 20 times the existing amount of nuclear powerplants in a few years.
1.15. Pro: For countries that have few natural resources, nuclear energy is the best option.
1.15.1. Con: Nuclear energy requires uranium as raw material and uranium is a natural resource [\(nuclear fuel cycle\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle), so nuclear energy does not help for energy independence.
1.16. Pro: Newer nuclear energy methods have developed ways to run facilities using computers. Most nuclear accidents are caused by human mistakes.
1.17. Pro: There is still a need for more reliable and predictable energy sources that can complement renewable sources that vary too much. Currently, fossil fuels are used like that, so replacing them for nuclear \(while renewable sources still develop\) is a great way to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
1.17.1. Con: Nuclear plants are not more reliable than other sources. They are subject to planned and unplanned [outages](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=1490).
1.17.1.1. Con: Nuclear power is [significantly](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close) more reliable than fossil fuel alternatives.
1.17.1.2. Con: The existence of an unplanned outage is not considering the unplanned outage of other sources.
1.18. Con: There is a concern in nuclear reactor safety and potential disaster to stakeholders.
1.18.1. Pro: In a case of a natural disaster, the results would be devastating for nature as well as humans and in the long run. In the case of fossil fuels, the results are usually not as persistent.
1.18.1.1. Con: Fossil fuels are responsible for the climate change, which has long term consequences.
1.18.2. Con: It is shown that fossil fuels have [more deaths](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/) caused than nuclear energy.
1.18.3. Con: Regarding nuclear power, we have a risk of disaster. Regarding fossil fuels, we have a certainty of environmental disaster. A risk of disaster is preferable to a certainty of disaster.
1.18.4. Con: Most of dangers, usually associated with nuclear powerplants \(like risk of widespread fallout or being targeted by rogue elements attacks\) could be remedied rather simply by placing reactors underground. The fundamental flaws of fossil fuel plants could not be remedied by simple design solutions.
1.18.4.1. Con: There is no precedent and no reason to believe that it is feasible to build such underground structures at this time.
1.18.4.1.1. Con: There is a nuclear reactor design, called the [Molten salt reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor), which has several advantages over regular nuclear reactors \(like it produces less dangerous waste and needs lower pressures to operate\), and one of them includes the ability to be built underground. This reactor has actually been built and proven to work before, so this is not only a theoretical design.
1.18.4.2. Con: Placing reactors underground remedies neither the risk of intentional or unintentional damage while increasing risk for groundwater contamination.
1.18.5. Pro: Chernobyl's exclusion zone was extended to [4300km²](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X?via%3Dihub) in 1996.
1.18.6. Con: No casualties were reported after the Fukushima accident because more than 80% of the releases of radionuclides have gone offshore and are [soon diluted by the ocean](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X?via%3Dihub).
1.18.6.1. Pro: Actually the radiation that can be found near Fukushima is [close to nothing](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated), you get far more every time you fly on a commercial airplane. Actually the ecosystem near Fukushima is healthier than before, because all of the people have left and therefore the animals have more space to live in.
1.18.6.2. Con: Fukushima is not representative of nuclear power plants as a whole. The situation would certainly be worse in case of a power plant located between population centers.
1.18.7. Pro: Safe nuclear power depends on competent design and business practices. Whatever is now technically possible in terms of building a safe, efficient reactor is negated by poor execution such as the new [Hinkley Point ​project](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant) in the UK where favours to certain parties seem to take priority over public interest.
1.18.8. Con: Large scale ecological disasters are not unique to nuclear power generation. Take for instance the [Aliso Canyon gas leak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak) or the [Deepwater Horizon oil spill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), two examples of [major ecological disasters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills) caused by the extraction of fossil fuels.
1.18.9. Con: The risk of a nuclear reactor exploding is close to 0. In the recent absolute worse case scenario, Fukushima, it took a full grown tsunami to even cause the nuclear breakdown. And even then Fukushima's environment has taken little damage, as the dangerous radioactive materials \(like caesium-134\) have a halftime of only several days and therefore are gone shortly after the meltdown, and the long lasting nuclei like uranium, can cause little to no damage to any living tissue.
1.18.10. Con: Big renewable projects can fail spectacularly too.
1.18.10.1. Pro: The failure of the [Xepian-Xe Nam Noy hydropower dam](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/24/laos-dam-collapse-hundreds-missing) in Laos saw 5 billion cubic litres of water flood the Attapeu region, washing away entire villages, displacing more than 6,000 people and killing at least 35 people.
1.18.10.2. Pro: Design issues with the Three Gorges dam in China has been the subject of many warnings and problems including [landslides and pollution](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/20/three-gorges-dam-china-warning). Cracks appeared in the dam [when the reservoir was first filled](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/13/china.johngittings) and there were concerns it might fail.
1.18.11. Con: After 14,000 reactor-years of operation, over a 50-year history, [only three significant accidents](https://www.decodedscience.org/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682) have occurred: Three Mile Island \(1979\), Chernobyl \(1986\), and Fukushima\(2011\).
1.18.11.1. Con: The impact of those significant accidents is almost unprecedented, so one could argue even 3 major accidents are too much.
1.18.12. Pro: There is [no spatial limit](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107) to the diffusion of radioactive materials in the air, and the half-life of radioactive isotopes is generally long, so every being on earth is affected by radioactive contamination after the Fukushima accident.
1.18.12.1. Con: The longer half life isotopes have longer half-lives because they are only weakly radioactive \(they rarely decay\).
1.18.12.2. Con: The more dangerous isotopes for humans are strontium 90 and cesium 137, both of which have moderate half-lives \(30 years\), and both of which are hazardous not because they are particularly radioactive, but because they both bioaccumulate in humans.
1.18.12.3. Con: Iodine 131 \(the one people take pills to prevent exposure to\) has a half-life of only 8 days.
1.18.12.4. Con: Even though people around the globe were affected by radiation from Fukushima, the amount was very low and on the level of one X-Ray scan.
[Fukushima accident gave everyone an X-ray’s worth of radiation](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129988-fukushima-accident-gave-everyone-an-x-rays-worth-of-radiation/)
1.18.13. Con: The current Fukushima exclusion zone encompasses an area of [less than 600km²](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X?via%3Dihub).
1.18.14. Pro: The potential for [spent fuel pool fires](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/spent-fuel-fire-us-soil-could-dwarf-impact-fukushima) is unclear.
1.19. Con: Rogue States and/or separatist forums can convert nuclear civilian energy projects to nuclear projects for war/warlike purpose thus posing a threat to others.
1.19.1. Con: Basically this argument could be applied to nearly all heavy industry, as well as pharmaceutic: they could be re-purposed \(by some rogue states\) to produce chemical or biological weapon agents.
1.19.2. Con: Generation IV reactors are being designed to be [proliferation resistant](https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.490779!/Proliferation%20resistances%20of%20Generation%20IV%20recycling%20facilities%20for%20nuclear%20fuel.pdf).
1.20. Pro: Nuclear power is essential towards minimizing CO2 emissions. Nuclear need not be 100% of energy share but is capable of becoming exactly that.
1.20.1. Pro: France is an exemple of a country where [nuclear power is the main source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France), and as a result is has a very low CO2 emission in the energy sector.
1.20.2. Pro: -> See 1.7.9.